V. V. S. N. Raju Chiranjeevi vs State Bank Of India on 20 July, 2021

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

V. V. S. N. Raju Chiranjeevi vs State Bank Of India on 20 July, 2021

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 15.04.2019 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 28.11.2018 and first appeal dated 13.01.2019:-

(i) Advise the action taken Based on my mail disclosure under whistle blower policy cheating and defraud in housing loans of Shastry Nagar Branch ESBM Chennai vide his mail dated 21.05.2016 which is attached with the vigilance.doc which is dated 20.05.2016 addressed to AGMVIGILENCE SBM/LHO/SBM/SBG@STATEBANK.

Page 1 of 4

(ii) Advise the action taken Based on my mail disclosure under whistle blower policy cheating and defraud in housing loans of Shastry Nagar Branch ESBM Chennai vide speed post sent on 28.05.2016 from ANNA Nagar SO Chennai (ET10815679IN) addressed to The AGM (Vigilance) State Bank of Mysore, Vigilance Department, Head Office, KG Road, Bangalore and the same was delivered on 30.05.2016 by 17.47PM.

(iii) Copy of the Initial Reference Format prepared in respect of the above fraud case by ESBM.

(iv) Copy of Investigation Report submitted by ESBM official from head office in respect of the RASMECCC, CHENNAI, SHASTRYNAGAR, (40234) HOUSING LOAN FRAUD CASE.

(v) Advise the action taken Based on his letter dated 15.05.2018 addressed to The Chief Vigilance Officer, Corporate Centre, SBI, Mumbai Sub: victimization of whistle blower and praying for justice under whistle blower policy.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 28.11.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Mumbai, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 14.12.2018 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied with that, the appellant filed first appeal dated 13.01.2019 The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 18.01.2019 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 15.04.2019 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 15.04.2019 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was incorrect, false and misleading. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the complete information and take necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.

Page 2 of 4

4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 14.12.2018and forwarded the complaint to Chennai Circle on 02.06.2018 and based on the advice received from Chennai Circle, the matter was treated as closed and dealt with and Chennai Circle was advised accordingly. The FAA directed the CPIO to either collect the information from the concerned department or provide the information within 15 days.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Ms.Lalima De, Deputy General Manager(RTI), State Bank of India, Bandra, Shri R B Meshram, Assistant General Manager and Ms. Lekshmi Madhu, Law Officer, State Bank of India, Bangalore, attended the hearing through audio conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that he had sought the information regarding action taken in the complaint filed by them. The appellant further stated that he worked as maintenance officer in RASMECCC, Chennai from 31.08.2015 to 07.09.2016 and he detected frauds in housing loan projects of Shreepavi Constructions, Chennai. Therefore, he filed a complaint and requested to conduct immediate enquiry to avoid further financial damage and safeguard the image of the bank. Thereafter, FIR was lodged with CBI and his name was included as whistleblower.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the matter pertaining to alleged fraud in Shreepavi Constructions housing loan projects was handed over to CBI for investigation. Therefore, the information could not be furnished to the appellant as the disclosure of the same would impede the pending investigation.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that the reply given by the respondent was incomplete and evasive. The appellant claimed that he was whistle blower and instead of recognizing as such he was being victimized. He asked the action taken on his reporting the matter and that might have no adverse effect in the investigation being done by CBI. Moreover, the stand taken by the respondent during the course of hearing was not brought out in their reply dated 14.12.2018. Both parties submitted that the matter was handed over to the CBI for investigation and the same had not been completed so Page 3 of 4 far. In view of the above, the respondent is directed to re-visit the RTI application and give appropriate reply/information in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act to the appellant within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. With the aforementioned observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 20.07.2021 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

1. STATE BANK OF INDIA CORPORATE CENTRE, 9TH FLOOR, STATE BANK BHAWAN, MADAME CAMA ROAD, MUMBAI - 400 021

2. THE CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER STATE BANK OF INDIA, R.T.I DEPTT., LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, No. 65, St. MARKS ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001 THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, CHIEFGENERAL MANAGER (OPERATIONS), STATE BANK OF INDIA, OPERATION DEPTT., CORPORATE CENTRE, STATE BANKBHAWAN, 6TH FLOOR, MADAME CAMA ROAD, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI - 400021 V. V. S. N. RAJU CHIRANJEEVI Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission